Study of Deaf & Hearing Infants: Sign Language Effect on Reading Skills

Abstract

A detailed study of American sign language’s effect on hearing and deaf infant’s

development of reading skills. This research is based upon empirical studies and the discussion

on infant sign language programs, that discourage and endorse infant sign language to aid the

development of children’s vocabulary, reading comprehension, test scores, and IQ scores in the

future. Through examination of these articles methodology, these studies results can be built

upon by past and new research to understand the effect of sign language on the deaf and hearing

participants. As researchers discuss the difference in ASL and infant sign language as well as

looking at the correlation of gestures used to communicate with infants in different studies.

Lastly examining research gathered from teachers, pathologists, and teaching assistants on

observational opinions of how sign language effected hearing and deaf participants. Which helps

us understand the benefits to deaf infant’s reading skills and the neutral effects upon hearing

infant’s reading skills.

Introduction

As infants grow and later attend school, their language skills become apparent over time

as they begin to read and write. This time of development in infancy is important because in the

first five years of life the brain will be 90% developed and you can’t go back and start all over

(Phelan). Infants in these critical early stages of language development can be interacted with

directly and indirectly, some of these interactions are due to disabilities or parental involvement

like the teaching of sign language to infants hearing and non-hearing. This process of teaching

sign language usually begins at around two to three months of age and the signs show at 6

months and sometimes earlier based upon the child’s cognitive and motor ability. In trending
infant education, sign language is being used and promoted for both hearing and non-hearing

children because of its benefits to infant language skills(Nelson). Like the skills stated on

www.Babysigns.com, www.babyseensigns.com, and etc. that promote infant’s development of

vocabulary, reading comprehension, test scores, and IQ scores in the future (Nelson). By looking

at these studies and information on sign language you begin to see the correlation of ideas on

how sign language can be used to benefit both hearing and deaf infants reading skills.

History of Sign Language

Sign language has been used to communicate since the 17th century, but initially it was

called “hand speak” because it was a symbolic language that was conducted with one’s hands

(Nelson). Sign language wasn’t very prominent in the education world originally, but the first

book on sign language was published by Juan Pablo De Bonet “a hearing man” in 1620. He

published this book “to improve communication with deaf students” because he was selected to

educate a hearing-impaired boy. American sign language didn’t achieve higher recognition until

Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet co-founded The American School of The Deaf in 1817 and once

again rose in popularity in 1965 when William Stoke published the book Sign Language

Structure. Sign language’s importance fluctuated at a slow rate until today, where sign language

has become the 3rd most commonly known language in the United States and is beginning to be

studied more (History).

Methodology

With looking at these different sign language programs and classes made to teach

children how to sign beginning from the ripe old age of two to three months old. You begin to

see the programs assertion that sign language is beneficial to the human mind in developing deaf
and non-deaf participants’ vocabulary, reading comprehension, and test scores (Nelson). While

examining the sign language education programs and articles that I found within my study, I

decided to include empirical studies from specialists, parental observations that were recorded in

different studies due to their experience with infant sign language and their experience in their

field of study.

After learning a little sign language, myself and seeing how it has been brought into the

public eye, I began to question if life would have been different if I had been taught sign

language as a child. So, I decided to focus on finding out if sign language does benefit the

reading skills of hearing and deaf infants. I did this by looking at the information’s methodology

and findings with observational records of parents and specialists to try and find the apparent

significance of infant sign language and if it does help the development of reading skills in

infants. By using new research done after the study by Nelson and colleagues, as well as past

studies to explain my view on how sign language affects infant’s reading skills among hearing

and deaf infants in a positive way.

Deaf Children

The development of speech skills for deaf children needs to be the main focus of their

education, because they are visually orientated and do not access language the same way as

hearing children do. If deaf children are not educated, their cognitive development will degrade

as they develop deficiencies in memory, planning, attention, relations, critical thinking, or

conceptual learning later in life. That is why deaf infants who are not taught sign language until

they hit kindergarten struggle to learn and develop language skills. Even when taught sign

language, 75% of deaf children are not fluent in sign language when they arrive at kindergarten.

The sad fact of the matter being that only 25% of parents with deaf children sign to their children
at home and develop a language in which they can communicate (The Nyle). That means that

75% of parents do not adequately communicate with their deaf children, showing how and why

only 2% of deaf children have access to education in the United States (The Nyle). In legislature

right now, Lead-K, a campaign with the goal of ending language depredation to deaf children

and are working to inform families that if deaf children have the chance to develop literacy skills

from a young age they will be prepared for school as they grow (Language). It is incredible

because preschools and high schools offer sign language as a second language to hearing

children, but the deaf have to fight for the right to have a language in which they can

communicate from infancy (History).

Hearing Children

For hearing children development of the brain follows the same basic process, but as

hearing infant's’ brains develop, they learn visually and auditorily. This development of skills

will affect these children for the rest of their lives if they are not educated efficiently, like that of

the eight million children between fourth and twelfth grade who are struggling to read at their

grade level because they cannot understand what they are learning and what to comprehend

about the material they are reading (Biancarosa 3). As hearing children develop, they begin to

communicate with their cries but also with gestures. Gestures are slight hand moments, like that

of infant signing that these children use to communicate. Hearing children have access to

education and colleges all around the United States, making education more accessible and

designed for hearing children. Sign language’s effect on hearing infants could be seen as non-

influential and beneficial in some ways, due to the cognitive differences within the infant’s

development. Meaning that they may exceed the average or stay within the average of the

reading ability for hearing infants due to cognitive differences (Donoghue). Throughout the
studies hearing children have been seen to develop language development by using infant sign

language and access advanced reading skills.

Research

In my main body of research from “Evidence for Website Claims About the Benefits of

Teaching Sign Language to Infants and Toddlers with Normal Hearing”, you are faced with the

question of if these educational sign language programs are beneficial to infant and toddler

development. In this study Nelson and fellow researchers looked at material on the growing

popularity of Sign Language being taught to infants with normal hearing children and hearing

parents, as it is stated Nelson examines “website claims, using content analysis, provided in the

framework of the study.” (Nelson 21). The researchers do this by looking at the promotional and

teaching insights on these sign language education programs that endorse sign language to

toddlers and young children to see if they are supported by credible sources.

Nelson’s research is based upon the national popularity of Sign Language, because of its

supposed affect to the emergence of early communication before the natural development of

verbal speech in infants. Some of these sign language educational programs have been seen on

different TV shows and publications to endorse the achievements of infant’s different language

skills through participation in infant sign language programs. As they list the natural

development of communicable skills from 5-24 months old children, as their purpose main

research looks to “evaluate the credibility of evidence used for support of the claims made on

websites so that readers and consumers can make inferred decisions regarding the accuracy and

validity of these claims and the potential benefit to their child.” (478). Nelson’s study took

sources that stated the promises of communication, language, behavior, and cognition. On these

33 sites, 6 common claims where seen to benefit the teaching of sign language to hearing
children: early communication of needs & thoughts, increased language or speech development,

improved literature skills, increased IQ or cognitive skills, reduced frustration/tantrums

emotional outbursts, increased parent to children bonding, and increased self-esteem,

satisfaction, and accomplishment by the hearing children that participated in the different infant

sign language programs.

Their in depth analysis of these programs help understand their value of the empirical

studies from before 2010. As the 33 sites that claimed benefits of sign language in empirical

resources are from the same three researchers, Acredolo & Goldwyn or Daniels from their

studies ranging from 1985-2004(Nelson). In which Nelson and colleagues find these studies to

be not controlled and valid in their methodology, as 90% of the claims where based upon opinion

pieces that were not seen as credible sources within Nelson’s methodology. Their findings being

found among the sign language educational programs original total being 82 pieces of evidence,

was cut down to only the 33 pieces of credible research from the three different authors. These

researchers find the material to be lacking in empirical data, because after reviewing the sources

for credibility and content appropriateness, Nelson’s research found some accredited scholarly

material but disregarded opinion-based research.

That is where my research differs in comparison as pathologist and teaching specialists’

observations within their professions should be used as they work with infants who participate in

sign language and without. This being because when teaching sign language teachers and

specialists need to be aware of the language skills in their infant’s receptiveness and expression

of sign language to develop their understanding of the transfer from sign language to English

(Beal-Alvarez). Language development is key to the cognitive development of any child as

Gallaudet University is quoted, “the more varied the form under which language is presented to
the mind through various senses, the more perfect will be the knowledge of it acquired, and more

permanently will it be retained.” (Barnes). Even James Cummins creator of “the Linguistic

Interdependence Hypothesis supports the need for a foundation in one’s first language if one is to

acquire access to and experience development in a second language. Cummins proposed that

languages share a basic underlying of cognitive and linguistic aspects that one can access a

second language, through cognitive and linguistic transfer between language 1 and language 2”

(Beal-Alvarez). This explains the correlation between English and sign language being made

because of the morphological, sound phonological, and syntactical structure built into sign

language (Barnes). Meaning that the words and signs that the child is learning correlate in

meaning, making it easier for the understanding of English to sign language as one learns to sign

appropriately if the words are articulated verbally and with hand motions.

This idea of correlating languages is seen in another study that is based off the idea that

emic perspectives “would bring new insights to the design of studies about reading and

bilingually reared and educated deaf children” (Mounty 334). This study was collected through

parental and caregivers’ observations and their understanding of how their children were learning

to read. While taking into consideration the stimulating language and literary environment that

the caregivers have created for their children. Meaning that the environmental factors that differ

for every child based is upon their upbringing, that can affect these results of how sign language

affects hearing infants. Mounty and colleagues took 12 participants that were deaf since infancy

or diagnoses before 24 months, as they were all ASL and English learners. In conclusion to the

participants interviews they stated 4 correlations to learning practices that they had in the early

stages of their development. The first being that exposure and accessibility to different pathways

like spoken, written, and oral language shown and exemplified to young children influenced the
developmental effects of the reading proficiency in both deaf children and hearing children. But

these children do learn differently as deaf children learn visually while hearing children learn

both visually and auditorily. Another factor to be in the bidirectional nature of their learning, is

the collaboration between caregiver or home education. A technique that is well revered is

fingerspelling, as helped with the transitioning to seeing the letter in a written form (Ross). The

correlation of environment and implication in the early stages of development in hearing and

deaf infants is crucial to understanding the link between the English and sign language. This

research clarifies the development of deaf children that are learning to read as being able “to

recognize the patterns of letters, words, and sentences. While hearing children recognize the

patterns of sounds and the relationships created by and with sounds as they read.” (Mounty).

By looking at another emic study unlike Nelson’s collective study of empirical sources,

Donoghue takes a different route by defining her research on the perception of teachers and

specialist. Before this though Donoghue explains sign language, deaf vs. hard of hearing, and

development of children and how sign language can be used as a tool for hearing infants as well

as deaf infants to express themselves before verbal communication. She also points out the use of

baby sign language and tries to categorize it separately from ASL, but in retrospect baby sign

language is just the simplistic use of American Sign Language based upon the context of the

situation. For example, the signs for “more, please, and thank you” generally taught to infants are

used to explain their wants and needs that are still used in the correct form of American Sign

Language.

Donoghue’s collective researches main idea through this study was to investigate the

perceptiveness of these specialist observations on the use of sign language and there affect to

their student’s language development. Donoghue does this by distributing surveys and collecting
them from 79 “early childhood specialists, including teachers and speech-language pathologists”

observational reports. I felt that these reports can be taken into consideration because of the

qualifications of the professionals in finding the key differences in the language development of

infants that participate in sign language. This study found that 98% of the professionals saw that

sign language benefited language development in the early stages of childhood, this being

significant research because 79% of the participants had 5 to 15 plus years of experience in their

field with deaf or hard of hearing children (Donoghue). This study was very helpful in getting

information on different sources that exemplify the benefits of teaching sign language to deaf

infants and how hearing children have nothing to lose by participating in sign language because

they will eventually be able to speak, but the evidence of risen development found in hearing

infants has been noted and as communication is found possible before verbal communication

with sign language.

So, in retrospect of these research’s findings, sign language has been recorded to be

beneficial to hearing infants reading skills with the teaching of verbal communication and visual

stimulation of signs to hearing infants. Even though there has been controversy of the effect of

sign language to the development of speech, like in Casseli’s comparison of hearing and deaf

infants. Though these ideas have been debunked by in future studies, parents still are presented

with this idea. By looking at studies I examined there wasn’t any negative affect to hearing

infants and their language development with auditory and visual sign language teachings. As for

deaf infants sign language is critical to their development of a language and communication,

because sign language is their 1st language in which they can communicate in their 2nd language

(Hoffman). Deaf infants reading skills are greatly influenced with sign language and their
process of development. With both hearing and deaf infants sign language can be utilized to

enhance their communication and reading skills in their early stages of development.

American Sign Language Information

In my study it was apparent within the research that adequate education to deaf infants is

hard to find and have access to, as parents have a hard time distinguishing credible information

from the propaganda used in education programs. So, I have included a few places in which

anyone who is looking to gain more information on sign language and what it has to offer to your

child as well as yourself can be available to you.

Credible Sites:

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders,

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-language

Lead-K Language Allocation for Deaf Kids, http://www.lead-k.org/

National Association of the Deaf, https://www.nad.org/resources/american-sign-language/

American Sign Language Teaching Association, https://aslta.org/

American Sign Language University, http://www.lifeprint.com/

Conclusion

When taking all the facts given and re-examining them, you see how past researchers

examined their work and identified what was plausible and excusable. With seeing the effects of

sign language in these different studies of infants with hearing and without, you begin to look at

the different correlations in the data recorded. Many studies find that there is not enough research

done in this field to comprehensively to say wither children who can hear will surely have better
reading skills than those that do not participate in infant sign language because of the differential

cognitive development in hearing infants (Caselli). With that fact being known there is no

consequences to teaching hearing children sign language with verbal and visual instruction, only

benefits. But the application of sign language to deaf children is critical to develop a language as

well as being beneficial to their cognitive development in language and their reading skills. Sign

language can be seen as a tool to better communicate with one’s child and better understand

them, then trying to differentiate the way they cry and act before verbal communication is

developed.
 Work Cited
Barnes, Sk. “Sign Language with Babies: What Difference Does It Make.” Dimensions of Early

Childhood /, vol. 38, no. 1, 2010, p. 21.

Beal-Alvarez, Jennifer S., and Nanci A. Scheetz. “Preservice Teacher and Interpreter American Sign

Language Abilities: Self-Evaluations and Evaluations of Deaf Students’ Narrative Renditions.”

American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 160, no. 3, 2015, pp. 316–333., doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0027.

Bélanger, Nathalie N, et al. “Skilled Deaf Readers Have an Enhanced Perceptual Span in Reading.”

Psychological Science, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 816–23, doi:10.1177/0956797611435130.

Biancarosa, Gina, and Catherine E. Snow. “Reading next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle

and High School Literacy”. Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006.

Caselli, M. Cristina. “Communication to Language: Deaf Children's and Hearing Children's

Development Compared.” Sign Language Studies, Gallaudet University Press, 2 Oct. 2013,

muse.jhu.edu/article/507486/pdf.

Daza, María Teresa, et al. “Language Skills and Nonverbal Cognitive Processes Associated with

Reading Comprehension in Deaf Children.” Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 35, no.

12, Elsevier Ltd, pp. 3526–33, doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.030.

Donoghue, Ellen C., “Sign Language and Early Childhood Development” (2014). Rehabilitation,

Human Resources and Communication Disorders Undergraduate Honors Thesis.20.

http://scholarworks.uark.edu/rhrcuht/20

“History of American Sign Language.” DawnSignPress, 17 Aug. 2016,

https://www.dawnsign.com/news-detail/history-of-american-sign-language
Hoffman, Mary, and Wang, Ye. “The Use of Graphic Representations of Sign Language in Leveled

Texts to Support Deaf Readers.” American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 155, no. 2, 2010, pp. 131–

36, doi:10.1353/aad.2010.0002.

“Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids.” Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids,

2012. www.lead-k.org/.

Marschark, M. “Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives for Deaf Students

Classroom Learning.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 11, no. 4, 2006, pp. 421–

437., doi:10.1093/deafed/enl013.

Michael Strong, Philip M. Prinz; “A Study of the Relationship Between American Sign Language and

English Literacy”, The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Volume 2, Issue 1, 1

January 1997, Pages 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014308

Morford, Jill P., et al. “When Deaf Signers Read English: Do Write Words Activate Their Sign

Translations?” Cognition, vol. 118, no. 2, Elsevier B.V., pp. 286–92, doi:

10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.006.

Mounty, Judith L, et al. “How Deaf American Sign Language/English Bilingual Children Become

Proficient Readers: An Emic Perspective.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 19,

no. 3, pp. 333–46, doi:10.1093/deafed/ent050.

Nelson, L.H. et al. “Evidence for Website Claims About the Benefits of Teaching Sign Language to

Infants and Toddlers with Normal Hearing.” Infant and Child Development, vol. 21, no. 5, pp.

474–502, doi:10.1002/icd.1748.
Phelan, Erin. “The benefits of baby sign language.” Today’s Parent: Baby, Baby Development. Aug 5,

2015 Rogers Media. https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/baby-development/the-benefits-of-

baby-sign-language/

Ross, Danielle. “Learning to Read with Sign Language: How Beginning Deaf Readers Relate Sign

Language to Written Words.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,

http://search.proquest.com/docview/304046363/.

“The Nyle DiMarco Foundation.” The Nyle DiMarco Foundation, Stoked Industries, 2016,

nyledimarcofoundation.com/.